The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC)—a non-governmental organization committed to applying the standards of Canadian broadcasting to its members, made up of over 700 broadcasters—has recently ruled that the 1985 Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing” must be edited for radio play. The problem? The word “faggot,” which is used three times, spurred a complaint from a listener in St. John’s about the song’s alleged homophobic message. Upon review, the CBSC decided that the song violated clauses of both the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics and the Equitable Portrayal Code. While their decision isn’t binding on non-members, members can now only play an edited version of the song.
The ruling has ignited a debate over censorship in Canada, with many media outlets, as well as the Canada Radio and Television Council (CRTC)—which acts as an appellate body for complaints against CBSC rulings—calling for the CBSC to reconsider their decision. The outcry against the ruling seems to represent a larger concern over retroactive censorship, especially as a result of misinterpretation.
As many journalists have been quick to point out, the use of “faggot” in “Money for Nothing” is ironic—as a counterattack against a boorish MTV viewer. The offending lines, “See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup/ Yeah buddy that’s his own hair/ That little faggot got his own jet airplane/ That little faggot he’s a millionaire,” mock his point of view and choice of words; it’s as if the singer is making air quotes around the word when he says it back to the man who called musicians like him a faggot.
While there is no question that the word is offensive, the context in which it is used needs to be taken into account. The singer’s intent is not irrelevant. Strangely, the most popular songs on the radio at any given time are likely to be far more provocative; in fact, they often try to be. What is worse—material that aims to be provocative, but slides under the radar of the CBSC, or material that is upfront yet unintentionally provocative?
Let’s look at some of the songs topping the charts right now. Drake’s opening lines in Rihanna’s “What’s My Name?” are “I heard you good with them soft lips/ Yeah you know word of mouth/ The square root of 69 is eight something.” These could violate the code’s stance against “unduly sexually explicit material.” What about Enrique Iglesias’s “Tonight (I’m Lovin’ You)?” It contains the lines, “Now rock your body/ Damn I like the way that you move/ So give it to me/ Cause I already know what you wanna do” and “Tonight I’m gonna do/ Everything that I want with you.” Do these lines not violate the Ethics Code’s stance against sex-role stereotyping? The point is, anyone can run amok with these codes if they try hard enough (or in this case, not very hard at all).
To be clear, I don’t think any of these songs should be subject to a radio edit (the Billboard Hot 100 might have been reduced to the Billboard Hot 10 if I kept going). If I had my way, music wouldn’t be subject to censorship before it hit the airwaves. Kids are going to learn swear words sooner or later, be it from movies, the schoolyard, or that time their mom stubbed their toe; it’s the job of a parent to make sure that kids understand certain words are inappropriate to use at a young age. If you’re an adult and you’re offended by swearing in music, feel free to wrap your Snuggie around your head when the radio is on; the world neither can nor should always cater to your preferences, especially on a divisive issue like this. As for the theme of a song, it’s important to remember that truly offensive material censors itself—in short, it gets silenced because nobody wants to hear it. However, none of this seems to matter to the CBSC, who have proven that they place content over context in what can only nicely be called a hypersensitive f#@k-up.
